Monday, January 26, 2015

Last week, the Senate
farcically and near-unanimously voted
that "climate change is real and not a hoax". The absence of a
spine on the part of the GOP -- and the reason for it -- are painfully
obvious from several aspects of this story.

For starters, the climate
is always changing, so, to a Martian, this would be about as
ridiculous as the Senate wasting time and money voting on a resolution
like, "The sky is blue." We Earthlings know that "climate change" is
code for "scientific-sounding excuse for government intrusion into the
energy sector cum cover for global temperatures eventually
heading in a direction the excuses models don't predict". So
the GOP members of the Senate have, at the outset, failed to question
the propriety of said intrusions.

This can be taken as a reasonable expression of
uncertainty about the origins of a change in climate, except, again,
the wording of the resolution makes speculation about causes a
complete joke. Why not vote that there will be a winning team on the
Super Bowl, with a resolution about any one fan (the side doesn't
matter) in the stands "contributing significantly" (whatever that
means) to that outcome (whatever that might be)? Word something
flexibly enough, and you're never wrong. So far as I can tell from
this story, everyone went along with this kind of
idiocy. But why?

Perhaps Barack Obama's exploitation of a
common Republican refrain on the issue of Massive Government Meddling in the Name of Global Warming or Cooling can give us a
hint:

... President Obama, who has made climate change a
central focus of his second term, turned the "scientist" response into
a punch line in his State of the Union address.

"I've
heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they're not
scientists; that we don't have enough information to act," Obama
said. "Well, I'm not a scientist, either. But you know what -- I know
a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major
universities."

Let's be clear about a couple of things
here. First, it is honest to admit being uncomfortable with the idea
of making pronouncements about questions requiring knowledge outside
one's expertise. But second, some political decisions -- even about
matters a government might legitimately concern itself with -- do
require consultation with scientists. So, anyone who refuses to take a
stand -- on the basis of a lack of expertise -- on the Political
Agenda Being Excused in the Name of Warming or Cooling, is not only
refusing to question whether this is a proper concern of government,
he is also playing into the hands of his opponents by looking
irresponsible.

On top of all this, our Senators may not be scientists, but they are
lawmakers. It is revealing that none spoke up against the propriety of
our government dictating the actions of so many people regardless of
what "the science" says.

I am no parliamentarian, but it
seems to me that someone could have proposed an amendment further defining
"climate change" or even acknowledging that there are moral and
constitutional limits on what a government can and ought to do about
it (or anything else). But that would have entailed someone with a spine, and that would
have demanded the moral certainty that could only come from truly
understanding why
he is there in the first place. All the talk about science in the
world will do good among our leaders if there isn't even a peep
about why
they should do anything and, if so, what they ought to do. Indeed,
great harm can and will result.

Our new Congress isn't even starting off on the
wrong foot. It is lying flat on its face.

2 comments:

Gus, a defining "climate change" certainly has merit from the standpoint of both scientific research, logical minds and public fairness.

From a political viewpoint, however, it is better to deflect criticisms AND keep support by blurring the underlying issue so the theory appeals to as many adherents as possible.

I have kept track (until the last few months) of the evolving term "global warming" since the world premiere (2006) of esteemed climatologist Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Gradual blurring of terms has been unmistakable:

It says something very bad about our culture that so many people find it acceptable for those charged with making laws -- that could deprive them of liberty and property -- to speak with such imprecision.